Lordship Salvation volume 2

Yes :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Well Said AIC. Well Said

 

There are 613 commandments in the OT.
Go ahead and try.

If you miss one then you are guilty of all.

HankD

 

None of your passages given conclude what you've said.

Scriptures talk of evidence of salvation. Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude, John.

All you're showing are verses dealing with the means. Not the evidence. Do you know the difference between the means and the evidence thereof?

 

Your verses given deal with the means of salvation, not the evidence of salvation.

Do you know the difference between the means of salvation, and the evidence?

Care to give some Scriptures dealing with the evidence of salvation, not the means, and leave out the personal attack, which is a sign of you losing?

To be truthful, it was fairly easy to dismantle your rebuttal. Your passages don't deal with anything close to what you're implying.

One more time, care to give me verses dealing with evidence of salvation, and not the means?

I'll await for you to do such.

 

I'm on someone else's PC without my normal resources. But I disagree with you here. Simply because Christ is called Lord does not mean that the command is being given to receive Him as Lord.

But then, even if you are right, you still have a problem. What about the many other places in Acts where evangelism takes place? Logically, in every case the Apostles ought to make a big deal about Christ as Lord if they believed in LS. But they do not in many places.

The Gospel very clearly does not include receiving Christ as Lord (1 Cor. 15:1-8, book of Gal.).

 

Oh come now. The first hina clause makes it clear that the purpose of John's writing was for people to believe. It doesn't matter if it was not limited to that, for the purpose of my argument. Since John's purpose was for people to believe, then the Gospel of John must have many places where accepting Christ's lordship is enjoined, if LS is correct. So you are dodging the issue. Tell me just one place please.

(And any article by Carson is worth the read of course. By the way, you'll appreciate that we were down in Wake Forest and my son took us and his mentor, Dr. David Alan Black, out to eat. Had a wonderful time talking Greek and missions. Then we went out with Dr. Maurice Robinson, where of course the conversation was textual criticism and Greek. Loved it!)

 

The Gospel is very specific in 1 Cor. 15 in not including the Lordship of Christ. Again, the book of Gal. defends the true Gospel, but does not elaborate on the Lordship of Christ. So you are dead wrong.

 

The problem with Lordship Salvation is nobody ever tells you how obedient you must be to be saved.

Do you have to be obedient 100% of the time? 90%? 80%? 50%?

I don't see how this is any different from works salvation. If salvation is by grace, then it is not of works. (Rom 11:6)

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If a person truly trusts Christ they will receive the Holy Spirit and a new nature that will naturally obey God. But we still retain the sinful flesh which wars against our spirit. Our degree of victory over sin depends upon our submission to the Spirit and the word of God, but no real Christian can lose salvation, we are sealed, we are preserved by the Spirit.

 

Are you sure that Lordship Salvation teaches that one has to have a certain level of obediance "to be saved"? Could you quote someone, like MacArthur, that has said that?

 

This is one of the problems I have with this debate. Winman and others on the Free Grace side confuse our view of justification and sanctification and thus they make statements about justification that we would never make, but join in opposing.

For that reason, most of these debates seem meaningless to me.

 

John MacArthur states in The Gospel According To Jesus we have to make an upfront commitment to not sin as part of an exchange for salvation.

 

I don't follow MacArthur or any other famous preacher, so I don't know exactly what they teach.

But how else can you measure lordship except by degree of obedience?

We have to be careful how we judge others, one fellow might seem to be a great Christian but depending on his works. Another fellow may not seem so obedient but truly trusting in Jesus. Only God sees the heart.

An example is the Pharisee and publican in Luk 18:9-14. The Pharisee appeared outwardly religious but trusted in his own righteousness, while publicans were considered terrible sinners by the people. Yet this publican trusted in God and Jesus said he went down to his house justified.

We are saved by trusting Jesus to save us, not by turning over a new leaf and working to heaven.

I am not saying we should continue to sin, the scriptures clearly tell us not to sin. But we obey out of love and gratitude, not to earn salvation.

 

He says we need to repent of our sins, however much of the arguments made are confusing our aspect of justification and sanctification by the mere arguments. We believe that God saves us to the end of our life, not merely the beginning thus there is a tidal wave of differences from the stereotypes mentioned here and what is mentioned by MacArthur or J.C. Ryle.

 

Macarthur takes it way beyond just repenting of sin (pages dealing with are in the 140's I believe in TGATJ). Maybe you don't even understand the entire implications of your own soteriological system's confusing of justification (a gift) with sanctification (a commitment, picking up one's cross and following Him).

 

Since we are on context (and the Sermon on the Mount), I think it would do you well to see how most scholars divide up chapter 7:13-27. It is typically seen as a unit. That means you can't remove the concept of fruit bearing from vv. 13-14. Not to mention that it is still a stated proverbial principle set at the end with a statement on wisdom and foolishness capping the sermon as wisdom literature. I think it is exegetical suicide to remove vv. 13-14 from the entire periscope through v. 27.

Also, I see you neglected to mention how I refuted your point about these "discipleship" passages only being spoken to disciples. This was the evangelistic message of Jesus. He would often say hard things to people so they would not follow him. Mark 10 and the rich young guy is a great illustration. The call was for the guy to give up everything and follow him. But the context Jesus refers to it as "having treasure in heaven" "entering the reign of God" "nothing is impossible w/ God" and w/ the disciples asking "who can be saved." So clearly following Jesus was the salvation message.

Luke 14:26-27 ("If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.") was prefaced with Luk 14:25 "Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them." This was Jesus message of evangelism as he preached the reign of God which must be entered through repentance and faith.

 

I think I understand it as I have read both MacArthur and have personally listened to MacArthur speak on this topic a few times. As well, I have read authors MacArthur says are great men on this issue like J.C. Ryle and read others like Ryrie who have written against him.

The purpose of Macarthur is that we must come to Christ surrendering ourselves to His Lordship. That is true, for that is belief and that is repentance. If you attempt to come to him holding onto your sin, you neither understand Jesus, Grace, or salvation. However, the rest is sanctification. The issue is predominantly a sanctification issue.

The free grace is not salvation, but a radical dispensational viewpoint. It says God saves you in the initial, but God is not powerful enough to complete the work of God.

 

Mat.7:15-20 specifically talk about fruit. But the fruit here is not works. It is doctrine. Jesus said: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." He was speaking of the false doctrine. The fruit of the false teachers was the false doctrine, not the "bad" works. Throughout he is speaking of false teaching, and their fruit--false teaching.
Thus, vs.20, "you shall know them by their fruits," means you shall know them by their doctrine. We know Benny Hinn is a false teacher by his false doctrine, not by his works. Likewise, Mother Theresa. Her works were good; her doctrine was evil.

"And Jesus, beholding him, loved him, and said: This one thing thou lackest; Sell all that hast, give to the poor, take up your cross and follow me."
--LS advocates often use this verse, but it has nothing to do with salvation. Is this what you would tell people to do in order to be saved? What was Jesus saying, and why? The rich young ruler had previously answered Jesus "All these things have I done from my youth," when Jesus told him to "Keep the commandments; this do and thou shalt live." The rich man lied. No man can keep the law. Jesus demonstrated he could not keep the law and the rich man's own sinfulness by telling him to leave his riches. He could not. The rich man went away sorrowful for he had much riches. He coveted his riches more than he desired Christ. That was his sin. That is what Christ demonstrated. Then Christ said to his disciples: "How hardly shall a rich man enter into the kingdom of God." The application is covetousness, not salvation. (Read the account in Mark 10)

In these passages he is still speaking to his disciples about discipleship. Certainly it will weed out those who are not true disciples and were simply following him out of curiosity. But that doesn't change the facts. He was speaking to those who were already saved.